Posts made by cloud7707

@mr_stucifer Totally agree with you. I have only played the balanced mod once, although I like the new NO, I think what really has to be done is to adjust the starting setup since, as you pointed out, it takes just too much effort to match japan’s fleet and by the way you have more boats, Japan has already done such a huge expansion that it meets your IPCs (comparing US and Japan’s IPC count).

@mr_stucifer hey, first of all thanks for the reply! However, I am not sure that one Infantry is enough. In 1942 2nd Edition, Japan starts with two transports (of which one is destroyed early) and only two aircraft carriers. However, even that is enough to pressure India very hard and even take it on turn 2 or 3 if the Allied player did not build at least 3 Infantry there each turn.

I will definitely check out the video, very excited if there is something I have overlooked!

This is just another rant post in which I complain how unbalanced Japan is. It is a shame that Japan is always too strong in almost every Axis and Allies variant:

I remember the old Pacific game in which Japan could basically win every game by just focusing on India.
Then there was The new Pacific game which had to be nerfed because of Japan’s “Death Star” and their invincibility because of the amount of fighters.
It is not particularly unbalanced in 1942 2nd Edition, but it is much easier and profitable for the US to go Germany first because it takes so long to build a fleet that can threaten Japan - and usually, Japan is already before Moscow before the US even starts going for the Money Islands.

There was a discussion that an Indian IC could balance things out, but here is a screenshot of me playing as Japan that shows you can assemble an army due to their 5 transports and their amount of fighters that can take India in R2… and you do not even have to neglect the Money Islands.

And even if you do not go India first, your first round will probably look a bit like this:

With this opening, you can push forward into Russia, defeat almost all of China, take the Money Islands, do Pearl etc. In my opinion, Japan has just too many options. Even if the US decides to go after Japan, they cannot stop them from taking all of Asia, from India to all of China and the Eastern parts of Russia.

Did I overlook something or is there any way to do a successful KJF in this game (assuming the Japanese player doesn’t make some serious mistakes)?

This is what a Setup Card for my proposed 4.0 Setup could look like. I simply extracted parts from a rulebook page and tinkered them together.

We also have a different House rule that has proven to be very interesting:

We use the Chinese Setup from 1942 but instead of Suiyuan having 2 Inf, we add an additional Inf in Yunnan (thous having 3 Inf 1 Fig)…

The Japanese player can still opt to got for it with 3 Inf 2 Fig, but it is an evenly and very costly battle.

Having more boots in China also makes the abundance of Japanese transports in 1941 less of a problem since the Japanese player has to send a bit more Infantry to China to counter them.

We found this setup to be way more interesting and also historically accurate because China was a pain in the ass for Japan and it shouldn’t be that easy for Japan to defeat them.

Very interesting idea. I like it a lot, I am a big fan of the change in 1942.2 that you have an additional IC in India, something that was missing in Anniversary.

I also agree that a term like “Outpost Base” Is more fitting than “Colonial Outpost”, especially if you take into account that Russia and the US can post it in places that are hardly seen as colonies.

I hope, this doesn’t stray too much from the topic, but I would really like to add this with an additional Infantry in China (to protect the fighter a bit more - though I am not sure this is still not enough) and 1 additional Infantry in Egypt since it is usually taken in R1 by either Germany or Italy with a 1-2-punch.

@Imperious-Leader Hey, thanks for your thoughts! I have implemented some of these ideas, like the Russian Bomber, moving the German Bomber etc.

As for the screenshot, I think it is not possible to adjust the starting setup in 1942 online, is it?

After having read some more comments by people from 2017, I decided to do another small adjustment which could promise a lot of fun: Instead of adding a British Destroyer to SZ6, I added a RUSSIAN destroyer to SZ4… That way, the Russian Destroyer can decide to block the path for German vessels in SZ5… or help defend the British Battleship… PLUS, we can finally use some more Russian Ships from the Box ecept from this one lone sub :D

This post will be longer than usual, but please bear with me, this is the criticism of the current state of the game (with the 3rd Ed. LarryGenCom Setup) that I found:

Criticism so far:

• Another pearl Attack
• The Russian attack on Ukraine is either “do or die” -> a failed attack could already decide the game here
• Way too long to get troops into China
• Russia has to focus its troops west to survive the German onslaught, the East is typically abandoned because of missing offensive capabilities
• German attack on Egypt still viable if the Bomber survives
• China is not really the vast and hard to conquer territory it was in the 2nd World War
• American support only shown through the fighter there, all of China but 2 Inf/1 Fighter is typically lost after R1
• However, Japan needs to quickly dominate the Pacific if the Allies go KGF since Japan has to have the option to be as strong as the Allies as soon as Germany dies
• Pacific war not really dynamic since it is basically just spending enough until one stack is bigger than the other
• Problem that the British fleet gets obliterated (even with the 3rd setup) and they have to spend so much money to efficiently enter shores on mainland Europe that is, building a fleet)
• Impossible to hold Leningrad… Maybe there should be an option
• Why sacrificing the German Bomber? Relocate it to Germany BUT bolster Egypt and Atlantic fleet to counter it/ maybe remove some German fighters from the West and moving them to the East
• Russian Bomber to trade more efficiently while not giving them more defensive capabilities
• British sub in SZ 37: Destroys Japan’s fleet, but unrealistic and very predictable every game
• Russia’s trading capabilities with 2 fighters are bad, they often have to send many Inf/Artis into battle to take crucial territories (which they need to protect a blitz into Moscow… A bomber would also give them the opportunity to attack in the east
• G1 attack on Battleship looks like Royal Navy at Scapa Flow, but that was 1939, Bismarck has also already been sunk in May 1941

The following changes are applied referring to the 3rd Starting Setup (Larry GenCom Setup)

• Destroyer (GB) to Sea Zone 6: It can be easily destroyed by a German cruiser + Submarine + additional Fighters. However, it protects the British Battleship from being attacked by these units and the German player has to make the decision if it’s still worth it attacking the Battleship. The German Cruiser going near Norway could represent the German Tirpitz operating from Norway. Even a German R1 Submarine play for Germany could be viable since the British player could move ships to sea Zone 6 which are then threatened by German Ships + Fighters in the next round.
• Transport (GB) and Destroyer (GB) to Sea Zone 4: This is giving the UK a drastic increase in opportunities to start attacking mainland Europe early, but if they do attack Europe in R1, they will likely be under attack by the remaining German Cruiser (if it’s still alive) or potential German naval purchases from R1. Historically, it could represent a convoy going to Archangelsk. It is definitely a boost to the British strength in the beginning (which it needs to support Russia better and give the US the option to go to war in the Pacific without having to help out in Europe that quickly)
• German Bomber to Poland. This way, the Bomber will survive and it opens some new strategies for Russia since they do not have to necessarily take Ukraine. However, this also enables the German player to attack the British Battleship although it is a pricier battle than before. It is even possible for Germany to attack Egypt turn 1, but to make decisions more difficult for Germany, the following things will also be added:
• Egypt +1 Inf: If Germany attacks with 2 Inf/ 2 Tanks/ 1 Bomber, they win the battle 44.1% of the time, while Britain wins 48.2% of all time. So the Allied are slightly favored but it really comes down to Axis reinforcements in Africa, if they attack Trans-Jordan and if the British player reinforces Egypt R1. Both players will have many options there (more than before since Germany can 100% of the time opt for an attack which is viable and Britain won’t get crushed immediately)
• Russian Bomber to Russia: Well, this is probably the placement many players have been waiting for. Since Russia often has to trade well and liberate territories in order not to get blitzed, it makes sense to give them the Bomber. Since Germany get their Bomber back, it seems also fair to give Russia one (and every heavy equipment also reflects better the Russian production during WWII). It also gives them the option to defend their Eastern territories without having to add an additional offensive unit (like an artillery or tank) in the east which could be too powerful there).

These were the changes in Europe, let’s head to the pacific:

• -1 Inf in India: Since GB got a boost in Egypt, they get -1 Inf in India (so getting down to 4 Inf after the changes of the LarryGenCom Setup). This should even things out.
• Sub (Japanese) moved from SZ 44 to 60: I wanted to simulate that an attack onto midway could happen in 1942. There are three offensive ships in SZ 60 for Japan now which could reach Midway in one turn. If it makes sense to attack it is another question (but that is the problem of taking these pacific islands without IPC value in general). It also makes another Pearl attack less viable (although still possible – in fact, it was even considered to be attacked again but then, Midway was selected as their next target to destroy American Carriers)
• Cruiser (US) moved from SZ19 to SZ53: This basically makes Pearl Harbor even less attractive (but still possible!) without having to add an additional unit to the US fleet. It also makes historically sense because many heavy ships were still stationed there at that time.
• 1 Inf (US) to Szechwan and 1 Inf to Sinkiang: This could give China a bit more survivability. They could potentially fight back with 4 units + 1 Fighter in R2. It also gives a unit to a Chinese territory that was formerly empty and represents some more troops that China had in the back (although often poorly equipped, which is represented by China not having more units). It could also give Russia the option not to send a unit to Szechwan but even mini-stack Sinkiang with two units. Whatever your choice is, there are definitely more now than before.

As you can see, I didn’t add or remove a lot of units, I simply adjusted their starting position, especially for the Pacific, which can get the US faster into the game and slow Japan a bit down without making them unable to dominate the theatre. I hope these additional explanations help you follow me and my decisions. Please leave your feedback, I will definitely try this setup out soon. I also like having a game played out by the AI on TripleA when I do not have somebody around to test play it with.

My concerns: These are a lot of new units for the Allies still! However, it is not like “I add a sub, which is only worth 6 IPCs, to Sea Zone 37 and thereby have the option to destroy Units worth of 54 IPCs”… They are still scattered, as is the case in China or even the British ships. However, this setup should give the Allies more option to react to Axis aggressions, as was the case in 1942.

The first games I let the AI fight against itself also prove that Axis is still very strong and successfully wiped out the whole British navy in R2. Japan still conquered China, but the US finally went for Iwo Jima in R1 even. There seem to be much more options now. Each game I let the AI play was vastly different from the previous. This was different before. AND, most importantly, the Allies are on the move, like the Axis, in 1942.

After 5 games (HARD AI), this is the following score:
Axis won 4 games.
Allies won 1 game.

However, I think a human player would have done better when it comes to logistics and managing transports, so it should be pretty even now.

I also played one game myself and have to admit that the changes do not change everything – but it adds up. China will still be destroyed and Russia also has to withdraw. However, because Japan was pumping troops as usual into Asia, it was a bit easier to take the money islands from them because the US outmatched their navy a little bit earlier. The additional troops in China also allowed me to start one counter offensive and destroy two Japanese artilleries. The Russian player also launched one counter offensive but was beaten afterwards by Japan because the AI decided to send all their planes to destroy the Russian stack in the east (which gave the US the opportunity to advance in the Pacific because their planes were stuck there for one round).

Hey guys, I read through all of the comments and I share your opinion: The game is more balanced now, but it is also more predictable and straight-forward.

Since I am still a fan of the 1942 game, I’d like to make a 4.0 setup so to speak - With the help of your ideas and with (hopefully) a lot of feedback from the community. there should already be a new thread in this forum for this.

However, I am already grateful for this long thread since so many great aspects have already been mentioned.

Axis & Allies 1942 3rd Edition Feedback and possible solution:

I read through many comments and criticism on how the 2nd (and 3rd, which I will focus on here) have only limited options of playing (if you want to win). Although the Larry GenCom Update balanced it out a bit more, there are still many things that have to be addressed (like Egypt falling if the German bomber survives/ China falling so quickly and being a highway to Moscow for Japan/ Russia being trapped from both sides without much options before help arrives/ …)

Unfortunately I cannot provide a source, but I heard that in 1942 online 2nd Ed. The Axis would win 70% of all games, whereas in 3rd Ed. GenCom Setup it went down to 55%. However, it still means that Axis has an edge.

I am not able to make an official 4th Ed. Set-Up, but I somehow want the game to be balanced in a way that there are more options for play and that there isn’t 90% of the time a KGF because resources in the Pacific are often not efficient and you cannot really stop Japan from taking all eastern parts of the Soviet Union. A second Pearl also seems like a very strange idea if you consider historical accuracy.

So what do I want to achieve in particular and how do I want to achieve this? Here is my list:

• A balanced game for both sides
• Multiple options for a game with a multitude of possible strategies
• A Setup that does only change minimal things… I don’t want there to be a completely new setup
• A setup that takes historical accuracy into account
• A setup that is accepted by the community

How do I want to achieve this?

• I will further read into posts by people and their perception of the game and what they want the game to be
• I want to invite all active players of 1942 to join this conversation so that we can hopefully get a setup that is accepted by the majority of the community.

I know, it is an ambitious aim, but I want to do my best in hopefully getting to a great result. I will soon post my first ideas of what I envision. In the meanwhile, you are more than welcome to post your thought!

Cheers!

Hi black_elk, I will have a look at it today :) Sounds like the strategy I use: Build a huge fighter squadron to protect west-russia, india and china, wherever help is necessary.

Hey, nice to have a new video of you, I will see it in the course of day! :)

I myself was thinking about alternative strategies for the game, especially for UK Pacific side. I thought of a fighter bid to keep the carrier alive, unfortunately Japan can counterattack with almost all their airforce.

Hi Protest,

almost always you should invest everything either in the pacific or europe. If you split it, chances are very high that you loose on both fronts.

Since the US is the strongest starting power (and will seldom drop under 38/40 IPCs) they play a very important role. Their disadvantage is that it takes a long time for them to send troops to the Eurasian mainland. As I have seen many times now and which workes for me is an IC in China to help fighting the japanese on the mainland. It is only one unit a turn but can make a significant difference!

What many players suggest is also an SBR strategy: You build as many bombers as possible and bomb germany. I am not a fan of this strategy since it can be really painful if the Germany player is lucky and shots down your bombers like turkeys.

What I often do is building a navy in the pacific that depends on aircraft-carrier + fighters. With fighters you stay flexible, since they can attack navy and can intervene in land battle if neccessary (and if possible since the japanese navy is still a threat.

I hope that helps a bit, I think there is a huge amount of topics that deal with an US strategy!

Hi innohub,

you mean US fighters coming over islands/carriers to support china?